If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

For those shots yes, my point was that seeing he has the cloud city style shoulder buttons he may want to add some flair, as there is flair on those shots ,m
To illustrate my point of it being caused by the strap, Ive done a (very) basic demonstration
Becuse the dome is round and the straps are attached to the brow line and there is a head in there, when the presure is applyed to those to points of attachment they are pulled towards the point of axces , thus being the chin , it turn flaring the ends of the ears out and pushing the back in some what,

In order for your idea to work it would have to push the dome up and squish it...is the only thing that doesnt really make sense to me. The straps are attached to the ears bolts at the top yeh but the helmet would have to be made of rubber for this to work the way ur describing it.

I knew some one would say that, no, because the dome is round the presure is dispersed to the whole dome area and because there is the point of presure on the ears pushint the sidea apart the presure is displased to the back , thus causing the whole effect, ; Its simple ,

I know my "demonstration" would show that , but my point of the "demo was to show bowing afect on the sides not the displacment of the presure caused by having a shearical , axces
as I said these are just my thoughts ,

Do u have a helmet to demonstrate I have one and that **** isnt going to happen...pushing in at that area is only going to push the whole sides in not flare the helmet...maybe even break the whole helmet...the back would in theory push out not the sides if anything it would make the helmet more narrow and pinch the visor

Ok now there are no ears on this helmet so it isnt as previlant , but it does happen and the end of the visor does tapper outwards when its tightend , and I wasnt hoilding it that tight either and it still happend so I think thats proof

Guys, you're all making WAY too big a deal out of the tall tale that there is more flare to the ESB helmet than any other version. You're just going to ruin your helmets.

I personally don't care what any of the experts "in the know" want to claim. Here, or on other boards. It just isn't true. There simply was no more flare. Though, if you want to achieve it because that's what people are used to seeing, that's a different matter entirely and is of course your prerogative. You certainly won't be the first, or the last.

But consider this. How many thousand people got to see this thing at Celebration 4 and walked away wondering what they'd just seen? Time and time again, the tale that's told now is, "Wow, not what I expected".

There is good reason for it. As per Gary Kurtz himself at Celebration 5 ....

"Episode 5 was filmed entirely differently from Episode 4 and 6. A variety of different lenses were chosen by Ralph Mcquarrie to achieve his cinematic vision"

This is all very evident if you watch the video that was taken at Celebration 4 in a full 360 degree turn around of the AoSW Fett. If I can find the time later, I'll dig it up and post it for you here to see.

On one final note, with regards to the GMH, there is a distinct size difference indeed. In most respects, it's "different" from a Mystery Helmet. Meaning, larger in some areas, smaller in others. The reason is quite clear. The Mystery Helmet is still a bastardized idealistic interpretation by Don Post Studio's, half way between the real Pre-Pro 2 helmet, and the DP Deluxe. What that company did to it is shameful from the perspective of a preservationist. It shouldn't even be debatable.

The GMH certainly is smaller than an FPH, and an original MSH or MSH2 for one very simple good reason. They were fan sculpts based on an idealized vision. A mere interpretation. And partially due to misinformation given us in 2003 about the size of the real helmet given by a so called "authority" on the matter as well as some mis interpreted laser measurements. This goes to show, that any "authority" in matters like this has often been proven as misguided theory. And in a lot of cases, merely a testosterone contest. I vaguely remember last year there was a helmet review in which an "authority" more than implied that the FPH was simply a bastardized recast of a Fox Studio Jango Helmet. When clearly, the Screen Jango helmet could fit/nest quite comfortably up INSIDE the FPH. So really, no lol ! I'd even posted a pic illustrating this on the private FPH order page that was established back in the day, so all those who were purchasing could see. Given that the claims go back THAT far. I didn't repost it last year, because I was quite amused that the ridiculous claim was still being made ;-) So, really ... every helmet is smaller than the FPH, MSH, or MSH2. Most of what we hear up here is "opinion" unless backed with evidence.

Fact : Screen accurate Boba Fett Costume components are MUCH smaller than anyone gives credit. Maybe it's because we want to believe different, or because we ALL want to fit in the suit. The truth is, only a fraction of us could actually pull off the suit. Remember how much "beefier" Don Bies looked in the suit compared to the ESB actors in the pic up shots of SE ? Has anyone met Don Bies? He's not a big guy by any stretch. Though, like me, he has broadened over the years lol

Just my two cents in the matter for what it's worth But I can also add, that in the near future my statements may hold water very well ;-)

Regarding that ol' flare issue: I don't care what the so called experts say either. There was something in the shape that was lost and it was due to that damned grand canyon crack in the side repaired by trailer park autobody specialists. The flare most expect is way overestimated, but it was there. Wide angle photography can be decieving, but it simply cannot be decieving from one angle only! You either agree to that or you simply can't be reasoned with. I have a fair eye for angles and perspective and I know good and well that that helmet is different now than it was then - and the 'flare' issue is not the lone reason. But the flare that was lost was minor and it was more likely that the dome was widened a bit by that crack and that caused the apparent "loss"... not the narrowing of the bottom sides. The glassing was so thin on those helmets that any damage could affect the shape. There's cracks all over that thing... it's ridiculous. But none so egregious as the mustard crack and that was not there prior. Cracked up eggs lose their shape and an act of God is almost required to right them again. It was more an illusion of flare than actual flare, but it was there. I hope I can get time tonight to clarify what I mean. People keep coming back to this subject for a reason.

The problem with the crack theory, which has also been argued at length, is that there would have to be chunks missing in between the cracks for the helmet to collapse in on itself in those areas to alter the shape dramatically :-)

If you can imagine an earthquake fault line for a moment. Once it separates in an earthquake, there is a gap left between and soil in between is lost. In the case of the helmet, if this happened one side of the crack could pull in and rest against the other, if material was lost in between. "If". Therefore, making this theory sound.

However, in the case of the helmet, there was no material lost in between. That's not the nature of fiberglass.

Being that I am somewhat of an expert in fiberglass (I've only been at it for about 15 years now) I can reasonably say with confidence, that the cracks in the hero helmet are merely "surface gel coat layer cracks". And I can assure you, without a shadow of a doubt that gel coat stress cracks like that do NOT alter the shape of a glass casting. Because, the lamination layer underneath it is still reasonably
sound, no matter how thin it is. It
Would have to go clean through, and as stated before, lose material in between to alter shape. Otherwise, even a body filler repair would put it back into it's original shape within a thousandth because each side is resting back on itself without loss in between.

But, convolution aside, gel coat layer cracks do not affect a thing. One board member comes mind.
Deadland. He dropped a helmet of mine on a ceramic tile floor from about 3 ft or so, and it suffered a number of cracks JUST like the hero.
All surface cracks in the gel coat. And in all the same places. The first thing I thought when I saw it was, "wow, doesn't get any more authentic than THAT "! lol

In 2003, my mannequin took a face plant in my living room and completely cracked off one whole mandible of an original MSH. Just like a puzzle piece, it went right back together and never lost a thing.

There's a thread active right now of a gel coat layer crack in another second hand FP helmet. Hasn't lost a thing. As with 99% of all cracks like this, you grind out the crack I'm the gel coat a little, apply new gel coat, sand and finish. This is a typical fiberglass repair, most often seen on boat hulls. Still, the laminated back remains intact, and supports the structure.

An egg is a poor analogy. It will certainly lose shape when fractured.
It only has a very light membrane backing holding it together :-)

All of this may be moot to you. considering that the next point will likely be, "how do you know that they were just surface gel coat cracks"?

We do know. Nothing was ever severed through on the hero helmet. Nor the Pre-Pro 2, which suffers from similar neglect

One other thing to note, is with the exhibit at C4, the most common reaction to that helmet, is that it looks like the ROTJ shots we're familiar with. Almost unreasonably narrow and skinny. There is no way, that helmet could have ever been wider unless it had been halved, and put back together

Fair point! I hadn't considered just the gelcoat being cracked. That's more than reasonable. The eggshell analogy was more for the big crack though and the point still stands on the mustard crack because missing material is not at all required. You're not thinking about it properly or I made the point poorly. The crack is all the way through, that I know. But there, very definitely, is a pronounced ridge as a result of a sloppy repair. That ridge indicates one of two things: a)stress relieved from the body, or b)stress induced on the body. The ridged area was not pushed back into place before it was sealed. That crack's ridgleline is the equivalent of a crease and that will cause changes in the shape. I don't care if it's plastic, paper, gelcoat, laminate or steel - if it's rigid and curved and has a ridgeline crack it's shape is affected. If it were a ball how well do you think it'd roll?

The bottom of the helmet is no more narrow today than it was then. The illiusion of more flare would come from a "twisting-in" of the left ear at the top by pushing that ridge in flush. It's an illusion more than anything. It's hard to visualize.

And BGH way to sneak update your post...where do u have the riot cup attached to just curious. Interesting what u did there I dont think Id want to tighten my helmet up like that though for sake of breaking it

Fair point! I hadn't considered just the gelcoat being cracked. That's more than reasonable. The eggshell analogy was more for the big crack though and the point still stands on the mustard crack because missing material is not at all required. You're not thinking about it properly or I made the point poorly. The crack is all the way through, that I know. But there, very definitely, is a pronounced ridge as a result of a sloppy repair. That ridge indicates one of two things: a)stress relieved from the body, or b)stress induced on the body. The ridged area was not pushed back into place before it was sealed. That crack's ridgleline is the equivalent of a crease and that will cause changes in the shape. I don't care if it's plastic, paper, gelcoat, laminate or steel - if it's rigid and curved and has a ridgeline crack it's shape is affected. If it were a ball how well do you think it'd roll?

That crack, would still not be enough to affect the shape as drastic as what you're all working yourselves up about, evening "IF" it did go all the way through. The crack would have to be a clean break 3/4 of the length of the crack to affect the shape whatsoever because it's rigid material, and the affect would be minimal at best.

What I think you're missing is, you're actually arguing against verified, legit information. The major crack you're referring to is not a clean break, it doesn't go all the way through. To be even more clear, or specific ... is that it doesn't go through - the full length of of the crack. Sometime later, it's been said that a clumsy archivist finished it off, but there is no evidence that has differed over the years to substantiate that claim, as this thing has been photographed to death without change over the years. So your saying "that I know" is a bit arrogant sounding to be honest. I didn't make up the facts. This is info that's been around for years buddy.

But even more, there are members here, that have had their hands in that thing. Debates like this are always a recipe for someone ending up with hurt feelings. Much like Gino tries to lead people in the right direction with things he DOES know for a fact, so are there individuals here that do the same. He is still argued with in spite of it, as will others about this. It is the way of things. The way of the force ;-)